Abacus

Just now, Jackie Broon said:

 

Maybe, but NDM being involved doesn't mean anything specifically. There'll be a very limited pool of sport's law specialist barristers and the cab rank rule means they don't get to choose who appoints them.

Well, I still want a giant Wor Flags surfer of him for the next match.

6 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Forest statement is in line with his opinions on what FFP is about.

 

https://x.com/nickdemarco_/status/1735644167521341793?s=61&t=Yt8DTJJ-7Jh_ndgpdGSFKQ

Shots fired there, alright. If there's a consensus between clubs who could all be adversely affected (which is most of them) and we're not the ones leading the charge because we're hated, it could tip the balance.

It seems increasingly journalists are being briefed in what it really means also.

Perhaps Masters has been playing 1d chess this whole time.

4 minutes ago, madras said:

Ich bin ein Forester

He's basically written half of the club's statement there, hasn't he? PL are screwed.

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

`That's fine.  My point is - we paid for a player at the peak of his value. We need to sign players that we could potentially double their value.

 

Only Bruno has done that. Gordon probably gone up 50% in value this season alone..

You could argue that Isak could well be in that bracket too. Obviously, we don't yet know about Tonali or Hall. Livramento looks to fit into that potential bracket.

So, in general, I'd agree, but you also have to recognise that it's a risk as they won't all work out, and some years maybe none will. So balancing that with a few more proven players should be a reasonable way to balance that risk.

There aren't many industries where owners aren't allowed to invest what they like in a business. It comes with the risk that it doesn't pay off, or that the company goes bust.

Going bust is sad for the employees and suppliers but a fact of life. Clearly football clubs are different, as they are cultural assets and important to communities too and as you'd affect the rest of the league.

So, normally, you'd think it would be enough just to ensure those owners can guarantee that they can cover any liabilities for the foreseeable future, and let them get on with it.

I do see the issue here which is this would allow the richest owners who could invest and provide those guarantees to dominate a league. But that's always been the case. It's just that right now the oil states are the richest of all and so could if they chose to financially dominate the league.

But again, I can't see how that is different to how it's always been or how you can effectively legislate to prevent one set of owners to financially dominate but keep another set where they are forever (who have got there themselves from previous spending and/or their historical reputation), due to the fear that a bigger fish will come along and threaten their dominance.

Whatever you think of the respective ownerships themselves, that can't be right. If gotten rid of, the fear could be that this  drives away existing owners who can't or won't compete (like the Glazers, what a shame), or dissuades anybody else from coming in and trying.

But FFP as it stands will also dissuades anybody else from coming in and trying, so I don't see what problem it actually fixes even if you are a neutral who supports it.

Just now, Erikse said:

 

There is reason to believe that Miley or Anderson could've done better anyways, considering how Longstaff has played with his injury..

 

 

 

Well maybe, but then Miley is young and to some has already been overplayed. And Anderson has just come back, and to some we make returning players come back too soon.

A fit and firing Anderson, I'd probably agree with you, but I don't see what goes on in training. And I also remember how much when Longstaff was out previously, he was suddenly missed, just like Anderson is the solution now.

I think had Joelinton been fit, this would have been less of an issue, as the others could have been rotated more easily as the situation required. And I won't even mention Tonali.

Lots of players play through injuries with painkillers etc - depends on the nature of it. It's hardly like we've been bursting at the seams with options. It would make sense though - there's been a drop off from last season when his engine got him through games and he worked his way into matches because of it.

A couple of people have been saying that they were disappointed by the club voting for certain rule changes. As far as I'm aware, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, whatever you sign up to in this sort of club doesn't matter if the rules are against the law in the first place. That's assuming these do breach competition law.

We, or any club, could well vote in could be prepared in the background. Not saying that's what's happening, but those kind of challenges can take a while, so there'd be no sense rocking the boat right now when most of the league seem content to vote for them, so you won't win.

I might be completely wrong on all that, by the way, just a random thought. Most annoyingly though, if we did have any grander strategy than what seems to be happening on the surface, Ashworth would presumably have been aware of it. So I hope he stays in his garden all summer and gets stang off a wasp.

On 11/03/2024 at 13:43, TBG said:

Class if we had to keep the cows, and they were allowed to roam the concourses.

And on the pitch, we could have our very own cow corner. Take that Neom.

Well, the Chronicle (I know) was reporting that he'd been assessed by the medical team on Tuesday and it wasn't as bad as first feared.

I await your skepticism with baited breath.

2 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Could UEFA/Premier League do anything about a scenario where a Saudi company wanted to pay £200m a year because, "It's worth that commercially in Saudi Arabia to have Kylian Mbappe play in the Premier League for a Saudi Arabian owned club"?

 

 

 

 

You could make that argument and test it, not that we would. Thing is with footballers, it also comes down to image rights as much as ability, for global shirt sales etc etc. It's one reason why I really can't fathom how FMV is supposed to work in practice.

That would be one reason why the PL are shooting themselves in the foot here. Pretty sure we were the most watched league in the first place due to having the money to attract so many big names, not to miss out on the likes of Mbappe or make everyone have to sell.

Pretty sure we disagreed with the FMV value rules - presumably that could be a separate challenge, if we ever needed to make one.

I think the plan was always to play nice at least to start with, and grow organically with things that had maybe not been exploited like some other clubs have, as there was plenty of room to do that. That was the gist of what I took from their plans.

No doom and gloom from me just yet, other than about Gordon's knee.

Murphy!!!!

2 minutes ago, geordiesteve710 said:

 

This is the best example I have seen of why the while concept of "value" is a complete misnomer to begin with when it comes to players. I have added to it below.

 

The "value" of a player is hard to define as players have (at least) two values at any time, the value to a potential buyer -lets call this value A and value to the club he is registered to (i.e. the potential seller) value B in this scenario. A transfer will only happen when circumstances dictate that value A exceeds, or at least reaches, value B and the clubs then come to a figure that is acceptable to both. There are several variables to this. Off the top of my head you'd have:

 

- how good the player is

- how reliable is his temperament

- injury record

- length remaining on contract

- age and associated potential for inprovement/ resale value

- do they qualify as homegrown for uefa rules?

- any international caps? If so, what nation and how good are they?

- what are his personal circumstances (eg is he settled where he lives or on the other hand agitating for a move)

- what strength in depth does the club (buying or selling) have in that position?

- where is the club on the table (eg pushing for Europe/fighting relegation or comfortably midtable

- ironically, another consideration would now be what is the club's FFP position? Eg do they need to sell?  How much headroom does the buyer have to splash out?

- is the buyer needing to retain funds to revamp the squad in several areas or is this the only signing they will make in a window?

 

- another consideration when selling to clubs in Saudi or other countries with no FFP restrictions (like we did with ASM) then it is fairly well understood that the player will be hugely remunerated for making that move, already pricing other potential suitors out of even making a move and reducing the leverage a selling would theorerically have to demand a large fee in an arms-length transaction with a value-driven buyer.

 

Footballer transfers are rare in occurence (compared to say people going to the shop and buying a loaf of bread) so there is a limited sample to benchmark against. Given the vast array of variables how do you reliably/accurately demonstrate what the hypothetical  FMV of a transfer would be?

 

I can understand it for sponsorships and commercial deals (even if I don't agree) but trying to apply fmv to player transfers is a fools errand.

Couldn't agree more. Though, you could argue that similar applies to sponsorships as well, just for different reasons, if one were inclined to waste an idle spring Saturday in such minor quibbling to what was an excellent post.

20 hours ago, Terraloon said:

Won’t be in the courts it will be  by the clubs themselves that changes come about

Please don't take it personally when I say this, because so far I think you're a good poster and a good addition to the forum. It's always good to hear the views of rival fans even (and especially if) it conflicts with what you already think.

But, I was going to say that there's no way the clubs themselves will change the rules, too many vested interests in preserving the status quo. 

And also, that Chelsea are most at blame for creating this whole fandango with ridiculous spending in the first place. That said, I'm going to row back on this a bit. It's not unlike Jack Walker and Blackburn, it was just the scale of it in your case, and now Man City's.

Anyway, to me your fans have a huge amount of legitimate credit for objecting so strongly to the ESL and being a big reason for why that whole farce collapsed.

And if we're being truthful, nobody wants to buy the league title but wants to earn it in the right way instead.

The minute it became a global sport where money talked, though, this was the inevitable conclusion and I just don't know what the fair solution is. Because let's say FFP collapses under legal challenge - well, I'm not sure I'd like the alternative either.

Believe it or not, most of us would love to have our 15 minutes in the sun with the world's best players etc. But I also think genuine fans would feel in their gut that something wasn't right after a while, and disengage when it's all about global revenue streams etc. 

Why do we support Newcastle? As a great man once said

What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It's not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It's the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city.

Looking forward to the squad lists being released next season.

Just to be competitive, anyone with less than 11 first team players, three lawyers and two forensic accountants minimum is a certainty for relegation.

2 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

Have you read the actual quotes? I don't think he would be so descriptive if he wasn't keen on him long term.

Even IF he doesn't want him long term but we're still obligated to buy, he's not going to trash his future transfer value either. But that's tinfoil hat territory.

Hopefully though, it's as simple as that - he's a long term talent with years to come. He did say that he'd hardly had much of a pre-season before joining, and he doesn't tend to drop in players before he thinks they're ready.

15 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

 

Yes but it has a value that could easily be defined if you wanted to and then transfer fees become more rigid. You could even go registration value plus the remaining value of a contract etc.

 

It would never happen anyway

Yeah, too many vested interests. You'd need to get rid of agents in their current roles for a start and image rights etc, but it's an interesting Bosman type argument re player registrations for both players and to the real "value" of a transfer to selling and buying clubs, which will of course be completely different from club to club.

It's why proving FMV is a mess when there wasn't FMV in the first place.

13 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

How about if we demolish London, throw the bricks in the Thames, and then move the Theatre Royal to Beamish

Now you're thinking.

4 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Signing someone for £25m+ for the medium term future doesn’t seem the smartest approach considering he is not getting much game time.  
 

I think he’s not as far developed as we had hoped.  Being on loan means we can’t loan him out so he’s just had to train loads. We are still optimistic he’ll be a great signing. 
 

Well, if true, I'm fairly sure I read some critique of Howe somewhere that he was only interested in winning the next game and not thinking ahead to the medium term. So maybe that wasn't right.

Anyway, truth is we're all guessing. The one thing you can say about Howe is that he keeps his cards close to his chest about what he's really thinking.

I know, let's just bulldoze the Theatre Royal and move the whole thing brick by brick to London.

6 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

Player values are interesting if you break it down. what you are paying for is a registration and not actually buying the player (that would be slavery!)

 

A registration for a league should be valued the same regardless of the player - you could maybe argue different tiers for positions so should the additional value of the player based on ability etc be paid to the selling club or just factored into what you would pay them in wages / signing on fee?

Well, I suppose that what you're paying the selling club for is the value to them of breaking their existing registration to them early, unless I miss your point entirely.

2 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

We don't have to pass FMV so far!

 

Regardless, the point remains - some companies will value the sponsorship more than others. A Saudi company will probably value a link with NUFC more precisely because we are part-owned by PIF and are therefore in a position to be "the" Saudi PL club. That isn't the same for a potential sponsor from elsewhere who will value the deal at a lower amount. 

 

As @TheBrownBottle says, you're not comparing like-for-like in terms of potential outcomes for Company A versus Company B.

Indeed, and per my previous post, because there is no way of proving FMV, that's why the PL are putting the onus on clubs (mainly us and Man City) rather than themselves.

Two options here; you either show you have competing non-related party bids of similar value, which you could get in all sorts of bother with re commercial confidentiality, even though in a free market sponsors will have all sorts of different reasons for what they're prepared to bid.

Or, you say this sponsorship is worth x amount in an open market because it's what similar sized clubs have. And there's no way you could compare our size to Man U's, say, meaning that any deal would automatically be lower than theirs, hence locking in their advantage forever.